Please allow players to complete mastery in any order

On this note, I would like to see you being able to beat any higher level of A.I. count when it comes to defeat x level ai.

Example, beating an intermediate A.I. would count for beating the Easy A.i.

Bread is primarily a carbohydrate that, while it will fill a bird’s stomach and alleviate hunger, does not provide much nutrition.

The game doesn’t want to give you carbohydrates. The masteries are a great way to introduce a new player to a new civ. It holds your hand and walks you through in order of a progression without overwhelming you.

I’d look at the masteries as more of a training than a, “look at my AoE Civ muscles! Just bench pressed 500 lbs first try!”. It’s little bird seed to nibble on as a new player while learning the civ bonuses. Me being a new player of Delhi, the mastery reminded me that I can place scholars in military buildings to increase production.

It would be silly if you could complete it in any order. Why would I complete a mastery challenge “Beat AI on Intermediate” and then follow it up with a lower difficulty challenge, “Beat AI on easy”? Someone mentioned if you complete it on Intermediate, then you get the Easy mastery as well. Again, I don’t think these masteries are that difficult, and it looks as though they were designed as a progression system for new players to learn. Not to flex.

1 Like

While I agree with the mentality that it’s for training, i can also see the merit in having access to the list as a whole right off the bat. I don’t see how this would negatively impact the training. Maybe the mastery list is given a star value based on difficulty so the new player knows what they’re getting themselves into.

I don’t see the change being something that is of a huge benefit for anyone other than more experienced players would be able to hammer it out in a handful of matches, so i expect it to stay as it is.

However, if training is the intent for the masteries, it may benefit from being noted as such, rather than a list of goals that appears rather prominently on matchmaking screens.

I’m mixed on this topic. I hated it at first (at least let me do consecutive challenges in one go I thought) but now I’m starting to see the point of it.

It does make you stop to learn the concepts of a civ which will be important. I like that, I think…

It’s just way to slow and not really fun. I find myself just slugging through it, but I have to admit, it is helping me learn how to play the civs I didn’t gravitate to.

It’s a mixed bag. I don’t like the specifics of how it plays, but I get the concept, and it is helping me get better at different civs…

2 Likes

I used to think the same but now I did all of them I feel like I purposely and helpfully put some thought and attention to every single aspect of every civilization. I think it’s a great way to learn about the game in the end. Maybe they just shouldnt call it masteries but civ tutorials or something.

I think it’s just a shame and quite frustrating that, as more things in this (first version of the) game, they didn’t pay attention to the details. So some masteries are not working the way the description says it should work and then you have to do it again after reading on the forums how someone worked out where the description is wrong.

Oh and this might be helpful to anyone reading this as I realized it like halfway through the masteries and could’ve saved me time: for a lot of masteries you don’t actually have to win a game or even play against an a.i. Stuff like ‘build so many of this unit from this specific building’ you can just play a skirmish without any a.i., set resources and starting age however you like and surrender after you met the mastery condition.

What if all the masteries were sorted into tiers? Say, 5 masteries in tier 1, 5 in tier 2, etc. Then, you start with only tier 1 unlocked, and tier two unlocks once you have completed 3 masteries from tier 1. Tier 3 unlocks once you complete 3 masteries of tier two and possibly finish all of tier 1. That way, it’s not quite so linear, but still has the progression element to it.

1 Like